[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190828194526.GA4842@otc-nc-03>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:45:26 -0700
From: "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Mihai Carabas <mihai.carabas@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, patrick.colp@...cle.com,
kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com, Jon.Grimm@....com,
Thomas.Lendacky@....com, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/microcode: Update late microcode in parallel
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 09:13:31PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 05:56:30PM -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> > > "Cloud customers have expressed discontent as services disappear for
> > > a prolonged time. The restriction is that only one core (or only one
> > > thread of a core in the case of an SMT system) goes through the update
> > > while other cores (or respectively, SMT threads) are quiesced."
> >
> > the last line seems to imply that only one core can be updated at a time.
>
> Only one core *is* being updated at a time now, before the parallel
> loading patch. Look at the code. I'm talking about what the code does,
> not what the requirement is.
Crystal :-)
>
> Maybe it should not say "restriction" above but the sentence should
> start with: "Currently, only one core... "
That will help clear things up..
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists